Author Topic: AARC Gala (Read 8105 times)

Anonymous · « **Reply #30 on:** June 03, 2009, 04:11:21 PM »

Except the kids in aarc aren't addicts most of them. Easy to cure a disease they don't have. Even at that the success rate is BS, most of the kids grow up and can drink without consequence because they weren't addicted in the first place.

Interesting that AA has a lower rate of success than natural remission, those who don't go at all.

Anonymous · « **Reply #31 on:** June 03, 2009, 06:56:28 PM »

"There is no question that the methods used in AARC are harmful. They are derived from the attack therapy used in Synanon, and then replicated in the Seed, Straight Inc., and Kids. AARC also uses a peer group to confront, humiliate and coerce the individual to produce conformity. Studies of these methods have demonstrated a tendency to produce long-term psychological damage in the those subjected to the process. These techniques were used by both the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese to extract false confessions from American servicemen for use in propaganda campaigns. It's anybody's guess as to why they are being used in AARC.
1. The clients are not assessed by qualified personnel to diagnose the condition AARC claims to treat.
2. AARC appears to diagnose clients as suffering from addiction when they are not.
3. The Wiz and his staff are not qualified to perform the interventions used at AARC.
4. A variety of disorders present in AARC clients go untreated as the staff is incapable of addressing the needs of the clients.
5. The methods used in AARC are harmful.
6. There is no evidence as to the number of clients in AARC who remain abstinent after graduating AARC.
7. The program takes in a vast amount of money that does not correlate with the services provided by AARC.
8. The host home system used in AARC is dangerous, and puts clients at risk of an array of abuses.
9. The methods used at AARC do not conform to accepted standards of practise used by mental health professionals to treat mood disorders, and are thus experimental.
10. Clients at AARC are not informed that they are experimental subjects, and do not provide consent to be used as such.
11. The ongoing behaviour modification experiment at AARC is not conducted by practioners belonging to a professional body, thus the staff are not subject to any standard for professional ethics."

TheWho · « **Reply #32 on:** June 03, 2009, 07:46:37 PM »

I do see your point but 85% of the graduates are still doing well after 4 years. Long after they have recovered from thsir stay. AA is lucky to see 5% if any success at all. The choice is fairly simple. The Wiz can show you the way or you can try to go it alone or with AA. Hey it rymes!!
Maybe if AARC gets more than average donations this year they can investigate stream lining the process a bit to soften it up or add more training.

Anonymous · « **Reply #33 on:** June 03, 2009, 08:08:14 PM »

It's really a shame that so many AARC grads never learned to read or write. Who knows where you'd be if you weren't taken out of school for 1-2 years. How many times can we reiterate...

"Patton said that while the study was a good preliminary “internal evaluation” with positive results, the next step would be to review AARC’s success rate independently. He noted that the study was rejected for publication by two journals."

AARC's success rate is BS. AARC is based on a program that almost never works. Think about it.

TheWho · « **Reply #34 on:** June 03, 2009, 08:35:35 PM »

Quote

It's really a shame that so many AARC grads never learned to read or write. Who knows where you'd be if you weren't taken out of school for 1-2 years. How many times can we reiterate...

Many of the kids that I have run into were not going to school anyway, so any education they received was a bonus. But the main focus was to get them on the right track with their lives. Anyone can always go back to school at a later date.

Quote

"Patton said that while the study was a good preliminary “internal evaluation” with positive results, the next step would be to review AARC’s success rate independently. He noted that the study was rejected for publication by two journals."

Everyone would probably be in agreement with him. The next step would be an independent eval. The internal study gives you a rough “Level of the water” type of feedback. The independent evaluation would tend to solidify the initial results and hopfully bring to the surface more of the details needed to make those decisions which would help to fine tune the process. I wouldnt be surprised if AARC was in the process of trying to finance this as we speak.

Quote

AARC's success rate is BS. AARC is based on a program that almost never works. Think about it.

Unfortunately the majority and the studies disagree with your conclusion.

Anonymous · « **Reply #35 on:** June 04, 2009, 11:10:12 AM »

AARC is supposedly based on the AA model right? That model has a 5% success rate.

If AARC has been so much more successful than AA for the last 20 years then why doesn't AA change what they do to reflect the higher numbers of AARC?

Talk to some people in AA who are familiar with AARC they hate it! They resent the fact that they work for years to become an oldtimer and some kid in AARC with no life experience is an oldtimer in 8 months! Many kids from AARC are surprised to hit up AA meetings and see how it REALLY operates. The lingo is the same, but AARC has it's own way of manipulating the process.

AARC does NOT NOT NOT have an 80, 85, 86% success rate! AARC still uses the total number of grads 400 and whatever it is. Please subtract all the people who have gone on national television against AARC and those who have reported their situation to the police.

:dose:

TheWho · « **Reply #36 on:** June 04, 2009, 08:52:18 PM »

Quote from: "guest44"

AARC is supposedly based on the AA model right? That model has a 5% success rate.

If AARC has been so much more successful than AA for the last 20 years then why doesn't AA change what they do to reflect the higher numbers of AARC?

Not sure, I would like to ask AA that one. One difference is that people who attend AA leave after the meeting and go back to the environment which supports their drinking and drugging where Those that attend AA meetings and are part of AARC receive support 24/7.

Quote

Talk to some people in AA who are familiar with AARC they hate it! They resent the fact that they work for years to become an oldtimer and some kid in AARC with no life experience is an oldtimer in 8 months!

A possible solution may to call them something different from oldtimers. Maybe “seasoned members” or create steps like stage 1, stage 2 etc. instead of classifying members as oldcomers or newcomers... but either way people shouldn’t get too hung up on titles.

Quote

Many kids from AARC are surprised to hit up AA meetings and see how it REALLY operates. The lingo is the same, but AARC has it's own way of manipulating the process.

That difference may be what makes the AARC kids more successful.

Quote

AARC does NOT NOT NOT have an 80, 85, 86% success rate! AARC still uses the total number of grads 400 and whatever it is. Please subtract all the people who have gone on national television against AARC and those who have reported their situation to the police.

It is interesting that those who disagree with the results of the study are those who appear to have never read it. The study focused on 100 graduates not 400. The results showed that 85% of those kids were still living a sober and clean life after 4 years. It doesn’t mean they never drank or drugged.
We cannot subtract or add people to that total because it was a controlled study.

Anonymous · « **Reply #37 on:** June 04, 2009, 11:06:24 PM »

"There is no question that the methods used in AARC are harmful. They are derived from the attack therapy used in Synanon, and then replicated in the Seed, Straight Inc., and Kids. AARC also uses a peer group to confront, humiliate and coerce the individual to produce conformity. Studies of these methods have demonstrated a tendency to produce long-term psychological damage in the those subjected to the process. These techniques were used by both the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese to extract false confessions from American servicemen for use in propaganda campaigns. It's anybody's guess as to why they are being used in AARC.
1. The clients are not assessed by qualified personnel to diagnose the condition AARC claims to treat.
2. AARC appears to diagnose clients as suffering from addiction when they are not.
3. The Wiz and his staff are not qualified to perform the interventions used at AARC.
4. A variety of disorders present in AARC clients go untreated as the staff is incapable of addressing the needs of the clients.
5. The methods used in AARC are harmful.
6. There is no evidence as to the number of clients in AARC who remain abstinent after graduating AARC.
7. The program takes in a vast amount of money that does not correlate with the services provided by AARC.
8. The host home system used in AARC is dangerous, and puts clients at risk of an array of abuses.
9. The methods used at AARC do not conform to accepted standards of practise used by mental health professionals to treat mood disorders, and are thus experimental.
10. Clients at AARC are not informed that they are experimental subjects, and do not provide consent to be used as such.
11. The ongoing behaviour modification experiment at AARC is not conducted by practioners belonging to a professional body, thus the staff are not subject to any standard for professional ethics."
"There is no question that the methods used in AARC are harmful. They are derived from the attack therapy used in Synanon, and then replicated in the Seed, Straight Inc., and Kids. AARC also uses a peer group to confront, humiliate and coerce the individual to produce conformity. Studies of these methods have demonstrated a tendency to produce long-term psychological damage in the those subjected to the process. These techniques were used by both the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese to extract false confessions from American servicemen for use in propaganda campaigns. It's anybody's guess as to why they are being used in AARC.
1. The clients are not assessed by qualified personnel to diagnose the condition AARC claims to treat.
2. AARC appears to diagnose clients as suffering from addiction when they are not.
3. The Wiz and his staff are not qualified to perform the interventions used at AARC.
4. A variety of disorders present in AARC clients go untreated as the staff is incapable of addressing the needs of the clients.
5. The methods used in AARC are harmful.
6. There is no evidence as to the number of clients in AARC who remain abstinent after graduating AARC.
7. The program takes in a vast amount of money that does not correlate with the services provided by AARC.
8. The host home system used in AARC is dangerous, and puts clients at risk of an array of abuses.
9. The methods used at AARC do not conform to accepted standards of practise used by mental health professionals to treat mood disorders, and are thus experimental.
10. Clients at AARC are not informed that they are experimental subjects, and do not provide consent to be used as such.
11. The ongoing behaviour modification experiment at AARC is not conducted by practioners belonging to a professional body, thus the staff are not subject to any standard for professional ethics."

Anonymous · « **Reply #38 on:** June 05, 2009, 12:45:56 AM »

Quote

It is interesting that those who disagree with the results of the study are those who appear to have never read it. The study focused on 100 graduates not 400. The results showed that 85% of those kids were still living a sober and clean life after 4 years. It doesn’t mean they never drank or drugged.
We cannot subtract or add people to that total because it was a controlled study.

400+ is the number of AARC graduates total.... not the numbers from the study.

Anonymous · « **Reply #39 on:** June 05, 2009, 04:04:58 AM »

"There is no question that the methods used in AARC are harmful. They are derived from the attack therapy used in Synanon, and then replicated in the Seed, Straight Inc., and Kids. AARC also uses a peer group to confront, humiliate and coerce the individual to produce conformity. Studies of these methods have demonstrated a tendency to produce long-term psychological damage in the those subjected to the process. These techniques were used by both the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese to extract false confessions from American servicemen for use in propaganda campaigns. It's anybody's guess as to why they are being used in AARC.
1. The clients are not assessed by qualified personnel to diagnose the condition AARC claims to treat.
2. AARC appears to diagnose clients as suffering from addiction when they are not.
3. The Wiz and his staff are not qualified to perform the interventions used at AARC.
4. A variety of disorders present in AARC clients go untreated as the staff is incapable of addressing the needs of the clients.
5. The methods used in AARC are harmful.
6. There is no evidence as to the number of clients in AARC who remain abstinent after graduating AARC.
7. The program takes in a vast amount of money that does not correlate with the services provided by AARC.
8. The host home system used in AARC is dangerous, and puts clients at risk of an array of abuses.
9. The methods used at AARC do not conform to accepted standards of practise used by mental health professionals to treat mood disorders, and are thus experimental.
10. Clients at AARC are not informed that they are experimental subjects, and do not provide consent to be used as such.
11. The ongoing behaviour modification experiment at AARC is not conducted by practioners belonging to a professional body, thus the staff are not subject to any standard for professional ethics."

TheWho · « **Reply #40 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:02:16 PM »

Quote from: "Guest"

Quote from: "guest44"
AARC is supposedly based on the AA model right? That model has a 5% success rate.

If AARC has been so much more successful than AA for the last 20 years then why doesn't AA change what they do to reflect the higher numbers of AARC?
Not sure, I would like to ask AA that one. One difference is that people who attend AA leave after the meeting and go back to the environment which supports their drinking and drugging where Those that attend AA meetings and are part of AARC receive support 24/7.

Quote
Talk to some people in AA who are familiar with AARC they hate it! They resent the fact that they work for years to become an oldtimer and some kid in AARC with no life experience is an oldtimer in 8 months!
A possible solution may to call them something different from oldtimers. Maybe “seasoned members” or create steps like stage 1, stage 2 etc. instead of classifying members as oldcomers or newcomers... but either way people shouldn’t get too hung up on titles.

Quote
Many kids from AARC are surprised to hit up AA meetings and see how it REALLY operates. The lingo is the same, but AARC has it's own way of manipulating the process.
That difference may be what makes the AARC kids more successful.

Quote
AARC does NOT NOT NOT have an 80, 85, 86% success rate! AARC still uses the total number of grads 400 and whatever it is. Please subtract all the people who have gone on national television against AARC and those who have reported their situation to the police.
It is interesting that those who disagree with the results of the study are those who appear to have never read it. The study focused on 100 graduates not 400. The results showed that 85% of those kids were still living a sober and clean life after 4 years. It doesn’t mean they never drank or drugged.
We cannot subtract or add people to that total because it was a controlled study.

Yes 400 was the total number of graduates. I would like to see something from AA

TheWho · « **Reply #41 on:** June 05, 2009, 07:06:19 PM »

Quote from: "Guest"

I do see your point but 85% of the graduates are still doing well after 4 years. Long after they have recovered from thsir stay. AA is lucky to see 5% if any success at all. The choice is fairly simple. The Wiz can show you the way or you can try to go it alone or with AA. Hey it rymes!!
Maybe if AARC gets more than average donations this year they can investigate stream lining the process a bit to soften it up or add more training.

I dont think the Wiz will try to soften the program or modify it at all. The Wiz has an 85% success rate as it is, I couldnt see it getting any higher than that. I believe it would be better to spend the money on reducing costs and/or increasing the population of kids.

Anonymous · « **Reply #42 on:** June 05, 2009, 10:14:07 PM »

"There is no question that the methods used in AARC are harmful. They are derived from the attack therapy used in Synanon, and then replicated in the Seed, Straight Inc., and Kids. AARC also uses a peer group to confront, humiliate and coerce the individual to produce conformity. Studies of these methods have demonstrated a tendency to produce long-term psychological damage in the those subjected to the process. These techniques were used by both the North Koreans and the North Vietnamese to extract false confessions from American servicemen for use in propaganda campaigns. It's anybody's guess as to why they are being used in AARC.
1. The clients are not assessed by qualified personnel to diagnose the condition AARC claims to treat.
2. AARC appears to diagnose clients as suffering from addiction when they are not.
3. The Wiz and his staff are not qualified to perform the interventions used at AARC.
4. A variety of disorders present in AARC clients go untreated as the staff is incapable of addressing the needs of the clients.
5. The methods used in AARC are harmful.
6. There is no evidence as to the number of clients in AARC who remain abstinent after graduating AARC.
7. The program takes in a vast amount of money that does not correlate with the services provided by AARC.
8. The host home system used in AARC is dangerous, and puts clients at risk of an array of abuses.
9. The methods used at AARC do not conform to accepted standards of practise used by mental health professionals to treat mood disorders, and are thus experimental.
10. Clients at AARC are not informed that they are experimental subjects, and do not provide consent to be used as such.
11. The ongoing behaviour modification experiment at AARC is not conducted by practioners belonging to a professional body, thus the staff are not subject to any standard for professional ethics."

TheWho · « **Reply #43 on:** June 05, 2009, 10:28:10 PM »

Ya know I like "The Wiz" reference!! I dont know who came up with that but it does suit the guy. He really doesnt cure anyone he merely shows them that they have the power to help themselves and it is all inside of them.
You guys are fuckin right on. Lets raise one to "thewiz" for showing us the way!!!

Hell lets raise a couple.......

TheWho · « **Reply #44 on:** June 05, 2009, 10:44:26 PM »

Quote from: "Guest"

Quote from: "Guest"
I do see your point but 85% of the graduates are still doing well after 4 years. Long after they have recovered from thsir stay. AA is lucky to see 5% if any success at all. The choice is fairly simple. The Wiz can show you the way or you can try to go it alone or with AA. Hey it rymes!!
Maybe if AARC gets more than average donations this year they can investigate stream lining the process a bit to soften it up or add more training.

I dont think the Wiz will try to soften the program or modify it at all. The Wiz has an 85% success rate as it is, I couldnt see it getting any higher than that. I believe it would be better to spend the money on reducing costs and/or increasing the population of kids.

Ifthey could take in more kids I think that would be better money spent then trying to change anything. They should stick with what works and expand on that not try to stream line anything.

Fornits
Fornits Home for Wayward Web Fora
An open discussion about the troubled parent industry